7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cardiac Corrected QT Interval Changes Among Patients Treated for COVID-19 Infection During the Early Phase of the Pandemic

      research-article
      , MD 1 , , BS 1 , , MS 2 , , MS 2 , , PhD 2 , , BS 3 , , MD 4 , , MBBS 1 , , MD 1 , , MD 1 , , MD, MPH 1 , , MD 1 , , MD 1 , , MD 1 , , MD 1 , , MD 1 , , MD 1 , , MD, PhD 1 , , MD 1 , , MD, PhD 1 , , MD 1 , , MD 1 , , MD, MS 1 , , PharmD 5 , , BS 5 , , MD 5 , , MD, MPH 5 , , MD 1 , , MD 1 , , MD, PhD 1 , , , MD 1 ,
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Is infection with COVID-19 associated with prolonged corrected QT interval (QTc) on electrocardiogram in hospitalized patients?

          Findings

          In this cohort study of 965 patients with and without COVID-19 infection, multivariable modeling showed that COVID-19 positivity was associated with significant mean QTc prolongation from baseline during a 5-day observation period compared with no significant mean QTc change in patients without COVID-19. A greater proportion of patients with COVID-19 infection had incidence of QTc of 500 milliseconds or greater compared with patients without COVID-19 infection.

          Meaning

          In this study, COVID-19 infection was associated with significant mean QTc prolongation from baseline, independent of common clinical factors associated with QTc prolongation.

          Abstract

          This cohort study evaluates baseline corrected QT interval (QTc) interval on 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) and ensuing changes among patients with and without COVID-19.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Critical illness, a marked inflammatory response, and viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 may prolong corrected QT interval (QTc).

          Objective

          To evaluate baseline QTc interval on 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) and ensuing changes among patients with and without COVID-19.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This cohort study included 3050 patients aged 18 years and older who underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing and had ECGs at Columbia University Irving Medical Center from March 1 through May 1, 2020. Patients were analyzed by treatment group over 5 days, as follows: hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine alone, azithromycin alone, and neither hydroxychloroquine nor azithromycin. ECGs were manually analyzed by electrophysiologists masked to COVID-19 status. Multivariable modeling evaluated clinical associations with QTc prolongation from baseline.

          Exposures

          COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Mean QTc prolongation, percentage of patients with QTc of 500 milliseconds or greater.

          Results

          A total of 965 patients had more than 2 ECGs and were included in the study, with 561 (58.1%) men, 198 (26.2%) Black patients, and 191 (19.8%) aged 80 years and older. There were 733 patients (76.0%) with COVID-19 and 232 patients (24.0%) without COVID-19. COVID-19 infection was associated with significant mean QTc prolongation from baseline by both 5-day and 2-day multivariable models (5-day, patients with COVID-19: 20.81 [95% CI, 15.29 to 26.33] milliseconds; P < .001; patients without COVID-19: −2.01 [95% CI, −17.31 to 21.32] milliseconds; P = .93; 2-day, patients with COVID-19: 17.40 [95% CI, 12.65 to 22.16] milliseconds; P < .001; patients without COVID-19: 0.11 [95% CI, −12.60 to 12.81] milliseconds; P = .99). COVID-19 infection was independently associated with a modeled mean 27.32 (95% CI, 4.63-43.21) millisecond increase in QTc at 5 days compared with COVID-19–negative status (mean QTc, with COVID-19: 450.45 [95% CI, 441.6 to 459.3] milliseconds; without COVID-19: 423.13 [95% CI, 403.25 to 443.01] milliseconds; P = .01). More patients with COVID-19 not receiving hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin had QTc of 500 milliseconds or greater compared with patients without COVID-19 (34 of 136 [25.0%] vs 17 of 158 [10.8%], P = .002). Multivariable analysis revealed that age 80 years and older compared with those younger than 50 years (mean difference in QTc, 11.91 [SE, 4.69; 95% CI, 2.73 to 21.09]; P = .01), severe chronic kidney disease compared with no chronic kidney disease (mean difference in QTc, 12.20 [SE, 5.26; 95% CI, 1.89 to 22.51; P = .02]), elevated high-sensitivity troponin levels (mean difference in QTc, 5.05 [SE, 1.19; 95% CI, 2.72 to 7.38]; P < .001), and elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels (mean difference in QTc, 5.31 [SE, 2.68; 95% CI, 0.06 to 10.57]; P = .04) were associated with QTc prolongation. Torsades de pointes occurred in 1 patient (0.1%) with COVID-19.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this cohort study, COVID-19 infection was independently associated with significant mean QTc prolongation at days 5 and 2 of hospitalization compared with day 0. More patients with COVID-19 had QTc of 500 milliseconds or greater compared with patients without COVID-19.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 — Preliminary Report

          Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with diffuse lung damage. Glucocorticoids may modulate inflammation-mediated lung injury and thereby reduce progression to respiratory failure and death. Methods In this controlled, open-label trial comparing a range of possible treatments in patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19, we randomly assigned patients to receive oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days or to receive usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Here, we report the preliminary results of this comparison. Results A total of 2104 patients were assigned to receive dexamethasone and 4321 to receive usual care. Overall, 482 patients (22.9%) in the dexamethasone group and 1110 patients (25.7%) in the usual care group died within 28 days after randomization (age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.93; P<0.001). The proportional and absolute between-group differences in mortality varied considerably according to the level of respiratory support that the patients were receiving at the time of randomization. In the dexamethasone group, the incidence of death was lower than that in the usual care group among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (29.3% vs. 41.4%; rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.81) and among those receiving oxygen without invasive mechanical ventilation (23.3% vs. 26.2%; rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94) but not among those who were receiving no respiratory support at randomization (17.8% vs. 14.0%; rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.55). Conclusions In patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the use of dexamethasone resulted in lower 28-day mortality among those who were receiving either invasive mechanical ventilation or oxygen alone at randomization but not among those receiving no respiratory support. (Funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research and others; RECOVERY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381936; ISRCTN number, 50189673.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Presenting Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among 5700 Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 in the New York City Area

            There is limited information describing the presenting characteristics and outcomes of US patients requiring hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report

              Abstract Background Although several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), none have yet been shown to be efficacious. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 with evidence of lower respiratory tract involvement. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. Results A total of 1063 patients underwent randomization. The data and safety monitoring board recommended early unblinding of the results on the basis of findings from an analysis that showed shortened time to recovery in the remdesivir group. Preliminary results from the 1059 patients (538 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo) with data available after randomization indicated that those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 11 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 12), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 19) in those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.55; P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04). Serious adverse events were reported for 114 of the 541 patients in the remdesivir group who underwent randomization (21.1%) and 141 of the 522 patients in the placebo group who underwent randomization (27.0%). Conclusions Remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                23 April 2021
                April 2021
                23 April 2021
                : 4
                : 4
                : e216842
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York
                [2 ]Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York
                [3 ]Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York
                [4 ]Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York
                [5 ]Division of Infectious Disease, Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: March 1, 2021.
                Published: April 23, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.6842
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Rubin GA et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Authors: Marc P. Waase, MD, PhD ( mpw2126@ 123456cumc.columbia.edu ), and Elaine Y. Wan, MD ( eyw2003@ 123456cumc.columbia.edu ), Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, 622 W 168 St, PH 10, New York, NY 10032.
                Author Contributions: Drs Wan and Waase had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Waase and Wan contributed equally to this work.
                Concept and design: G. A. Rubin, Yarmohammadi, Avula, Kushnir, Uriel, Zucker, Sobieszczyk, Schwartz, Waase, Wan.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: G. A. Rubin, Desai, Chai, A. Wang, Chen, A. S. Wang, Kemal, Baksh, Biviano, Dizon, Yarmohammadi, Ehlert, Saluja, D. A. Rubin, Morrow, Berman, Kushnir, Abrams, Hennessey, Elias, Poterucha, Kubin, LaSota, Zucker, Sobieszczyk, Garan, Waase, Wan.
                Drafting of the manuscript: G. A. Rubin, Desai, Chai, A. Wang, Kemal, Avula, Hennessey, Elias, Waase, Wan.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: G. A. Rubin, Desai, Chai, A. Wang, Chen, A. S. Wang, Baksh, Biviano, Dizon, Yarmohammadi, Ehlert, Saluja, D. A. Rubin, Morrow, Berman, Kushnir, Abrams, Poterucha, Uriel, Kubin, LaSota, Zucker, Sobieszczyk, Schwartz, Garan, Waase, Wan.
                Statistical analysis: G. A. Rubin, Desai, Chai, A. Wang, Chen, Kemal, Saluja, Kushnir, Abrams, Zucker.
                Obtained funding: Zucker, Wan.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: G. A. Rubin, A. S. Wang, Ehlert, Morrow, Avula, Berman, Abrams, Kubin, LaSota, Zucker, Waase, Wan.
                Supervision: Chen, Biviano, Dizon, Ehlert, Elias, Uriel, Schwartz, Garan, Waase, Wan.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Biviano reported serving as an advisory board member for Boston Scientific and Biosense Webster outside the submitted work. Dr Saluja reported receiving personal fees from Abbott and Biosense Webster outside the submitted work. Dr Poterucha reported owning stock in Abbvie, Abbott Laboratories, Edwards Lifesciences, and Baxter International and receiving grants from Eidos Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Amyloidosis Foundation outside the submitted work. Dr Uriel reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, and Livemetric and serving on the scientific advisory board of Leviticus outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: Dr Wan was supported by grant NIH R01 HL152236 from the National Institutes of Health, the Esther Aboodi Endowed Professorship at Columbia University, and the Wu Family Research fund. Dr Sobieszczyk was supported by grant UM1AI069470 and supplement from the National Institutes of Health. Dr Zucker was supported by grants K23AI150378 and L30AI133789 from the National Institutes of Health.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Additional Contributions: We would like to acknowledge the data in the COVID-CARE database based at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, in the Division of Infectious Diseases.
                Article
                zoi210223
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.6842
                8065381
                33890991
                16c035ee-96b6-429d-b6a0-a5d7cff527a7
                Copyright 2021 Rubin GA et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 1 December 2020
                : 1 March 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Cardiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article